6.34 pm [p. 82]Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington)
(Con): I am against the motion, in part because
I think the timing, given the financial chaos in Europe,
is highly inappropriate. But that is not the main
reason that I would give to the House as to why the
motion is unwise.

It purports to give three choices to the House and
to the country as a whole—in the European Union,
out of the European Union, or renegotiation, but as
has been pointed out earlier in the debate, that is
not really a third option because it is renegotiation
with a view to purely a trade relationship in Europe.

That is, in effect, leaving the European Union because
it involves no sharing of sovereignty. I fully concede
that any membership of the European Union at the end
of the day must involve, as it always has done, some
willingness to acknowledge that sovereignty has to
be shared.

Mr Redwood: Has
not my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that
the motion refers to trade and co-operation to encompass
the current Conservative policy?

Sir Malcolm
Rifkind: No, I am sorry, that is not
the case because present Conservative policy is about
sharing sovereignty in certain areas where it is overwhelmingly
in our national interest.

When we consider what the real options are, the real
debate is not whether we should be in Europe or out
of Europe, but what kind of European Union we are
prepared to be members of. The assumption of this
debate and many other debates is that one side or
the other will win. We will either have an even closer
union or the European Union will ultimately implode.

That might be what will happen if the European Union
does not use its own common sense and look to see
whether there is a third route.

Mr Baron:Will
my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Malcolm Rifkind:
Not at this moment, if my hon. Friend will allow me.

There is a third route and we are already partly
along that way—that is, an à la carte
Europe, where each member state decides what degree
of integration it is prepared to accept in view of
its own national history, rather like France being
a semi-detached member of NATO for three years because
it believed it to be in the French interest, and NATO
did not collapse as a consequence.

I say that we are already part of the way there,
because at present, of the 27 member states, only
17 are members of the eurozone. Ten states are not,
some because they do not want to be, and some because
they could not join even if they wanted to.We are
not part of Schengen, nor are the Irish. The neutral
countries such as Austria, Ireland, Sweden and Finland,
have never been fully involved in defence co-operation
because of their neutrality.

The problem at present is not that there is not
an element of à la carte, but that there is
a fiction in the European Union that that is purely
temporary. That it is a transition and that we are
all going to the same destination and the debate is
merely about how long it will take us to get there.

No, that is not the case. What we need is a European
Union that respects the rights both of those who have
a legitimate desire, in terms of their own national
interest, for closer integration, and those of us
who do not choose to go that way. That has to be argued
and negotiated, sometimes on the basis of considerable
acrimony.

Mark Pritchard:My
right hon. and learned Friend talks about renegotiating
and repatriating powers.What powers and what timetable
does he envisage?

Sir Malcolm Rifkind:
As I said, the idea of an à la carte Europe
is already partly there, but it should not just be
a privilege; it should be a right. What we need, not
just for the United Kingdom, but for all the member
states, is a European Union where we will not stop
France and Germany if they wish to move to closer
integration and fiscal union—that ultimately
is their business—but nor must they seek to
impose a veto on the level of integration that we
should have.

There is an irreducible minimum because, as I mentioned
at the beginning of my remarks, a member state cannot
simply not participate in the single market, but that
does involve substantial sharing of sovereignty in
a way that a free trade zone does not. That point
does not seem to have been acknowledged by many of
the critics. If there is, as we have at present, free
movement of labour, that is not consistent with a
purist view of national sovereignty, but it is crucially
in the interests of the United Kingdom.

Mrs Main rose—

Sir Malcolm Rifkind:
I have already given way twice. I am sorry, I cannot
give way again without losing my own time.

Those are the points of the real debate that we
must take forward. It so happens that this is not
just a theoretical option. There is a strong possibility
that because of the chaos in the eurozone, there will
be a need for some treaty change. That will require
to be agreed unanimously, and that provides my right
hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary
with what is likely to be an excellent opportunity
to take that debate forward and to argue that if other
countries wish to go further, we wish to consider
the question of the kind of European Union we and
perhaps other countries such as Sweden, Denmark and
Poland would be content with.

On that basis, I say to the House that we cannot
constrain the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister
in the incredibly difficult negotiations that will
take place. To have a debate that might lead to a
referendum on whether Britain will remain in the European
Union or leave it entirely is such a massive distraction
from the real concerns that this country and the rest
of Europe have to address.

[Interruption.]

I am sorry, but I am entitled to my view, just as
all my hon. Friends are entitled to theirs.

I am conscious that many Members wish to speak and so
will conclude my remarks. There have been other occasions
of this kind when people have had fundamental differences
of principle. I recently read a quote that struck me as
highly relevant to our debate. It was from a politician
who belonged not to the Conservative party, but to the Labour
party.

In 1957, Aneurin Bevan, a great believer in unilateral
disarmament, spoke to a Labour party conference that
was likely to carry a resolution in favour of unilateral
disarmament. He told his own party:

“if you carry this resolution and follow
out all its implications… you will send a
British Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked
into the conference chamber... And you call that
statesmanship?”

“By contrast, the three tax bases for Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan add up to about $33 trillion. But the plan exempts from any tax people below the poverty line. Using poverty tables, this exemption reduces each tax base by roughly $2.5 trillion. Thus, Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 tax base for his business tax is $9.5 trillion, for his income tax $7.7 trillion, and for his sales tax $8.3 trillion. And there you have it! Three federal taxes at 9% that would raise roughly $2.3 trillion and replace the current income tax, corporate tax, payroll tax (employer and employee), capital gains tax and estate tax.

“The whole purpose of a flat tax, à la 9-9-9, is to lower marginal tax rates and simplify the tax code. With lower marginal tax rates (and boy will marginal tax rates be lower with the 9-9-9 plan), both the demand for and the supply of labor and capital will increase. Output will soar, as will jobs. Tax revenues will also increase enormously—not because tax rates have increased, but because marginal tax rates have decreased.

“By making the tax codes a lot simpler, we'd allow individuals and businesses to spend a lot less on maintaining tax records; filing taxes; hiring lawyers, accountants and tax-deferral experts; and lobbying Congress. As I wrote on this page earlier this year ("The 30-Cent Tax Premium," April 18), for every dollar of business and personal income taxes paid, some 30 cents in out-of-pocket expenses also were paid to comply with the tax code. Under 9-9-9, these expenses would plummet without a penny being lost to the U.S. Treasury. It's a win-win.”

“Last week in the Guardian, Michael White wondered why Liam Fox did not make his friend Adam Werrity an officially sanctioned special adviser. Had he done so, Werrity's presence in his department would not have broken civil service rules, and Fox might still be in his post. But it would also have meant that Werrity's activities would have been subject to freedom of information requests, and that could have been fatal to what he was doing." ... "The Labour government weakened the rules on lobbying transparency. The ministerial code published in 2007 dropped the requirement that meetings between ministers and lobbyists should be recorded. It also rebuffed MPs' demands for a register of lobbyists...”

They own the fascist Labour Party.
The fascist Labour Party fund the unions’ ‘wages’
out of taxes, who then return a percentage to the party
bosses.
Who then make up ‘jobs’ to expand union numbers.
So’s they can give even more tax payer’s money
to the unions, who then pay more to the fascist Labour
Party,
who then ....

“The trade unions accounted for 86 per cent
of all donations to the party in the second quarter
of this year.

“Of the £5.9m the Labour Party has received
across both quarters this year, £5.2m or 88 per
cent came from the unions.

“....when Tony Blair became Labour leader, trade
unions accounted for just a third of the party's annual
income. In 2010, they accounted for more than 60 per
cent.” [Quoted from newstatesman.com]

The younger Miliband, who ran a left-leaning campaign
and only emerged as favourite in the last 24 hours,
declared himself proud and elated as he pledged to reunite
the party and put it back on the road to power.

“But his victory was not without controversy
as he won by a narrow margin – 50.65% of the vote
to 49.35% for his brother – and thanks in large
part to a strong vote from the unions. David Miliband
received stronger backing from MPs and MEPs and from
party members.” [Quoted from guardian.co.uk]

Both the ECB and Germany moving to
a clash between ‘laws’ and realities.

“...He warned too that Germany's legislature
would not give up its fiscal sovereignty to any EU body.”
—
“ ...What mattered was the Court’s implicit
warning that Germany had reached the outer boundaries
of EU integration, that German democracy is under threat,
and its explicit warning that the Bundestag’s
fiscal powers could not be alienated to Brussels.

“Something profound has changed. Germans have
begun to sense that the preservation of their own democracy
and rule of law is in conflict with demands from Europe.
They must choose one or the other.

“Yet Europe and the world are so used to German
self-abnegation for the EU Project – so used to
the teleological destiny of ever-closer Union –
that they cannot seem to grasp the fact. It reminds
me of 1989 and the establishment failure to understand
the Soviet game was up.

“Get used to it. This is the political reality
of Europe, since nothing of importance can be done without
Germany. All else is wishful thinking, clutching at
straws, and evasion. If this means the euro will shed
some members or blow apart – as it almost certainly
does – then the rest of the world must prepare
for the day.”